Magazine Ammo Limits
Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of Americagunlaws.com / Bloomfield PressThe lamestream media told you:
30-round magazines are too dangerous for the public to have. There is no legitimate use for large magazines. If this Tucson murderer had smaller magazines he would have done less damage. Magazines over ten rounds should be outlawed. Banning magazines over ten rounds will make you safer, even if the New York Times said, after the last magazine-size ban, that it had no impact on crime whatsoever. Just because something doesn't work, doesn't mean we shouldn't try it again. Anyone can see that small magazines make you safe.The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The 30-round magazine debate misses a key point.Talking points for the 30-round firearm-magazine-size debate
Depriving the public of gear as a way to stop murderers is misguided because it cannot work. It puts you at risk, and at its core, is a thinly disguised effort to get to zero-round magazines -- in the false and dangerous belief that disarming innocent people will finally disarm criminals.
Several legislators (state and federal) asked me for talking points
so when they face the media on the latest anti-gun-rights barrage
they have clear, cogent, common-sense responses. This is my reply
to their requests.The Crux
By focusing on magazine size instead of ways to stop active shootersNone of these arguments matter.
you jeopardize everyone's safety.
Hoping to limit murderers by limiting magazines is irrational and hoplophobic.
Why have people picked a ten-round limit? Why not two?
Are they saying it's OK to only kill ten people? That makes no sense.
Would you make police obey the same limit? Why not? This is key.
Parity with Police:
The public faces the same criminals police do.
Any restrictions for the public must match what police can use.
The public is always first at the scene.
If you can't justify impeding the police with ammunition limits,
you cannot legitimately justify impeding the public that way.
What's needed to stop rampages is not another law written on paper,
but speedier law enforcement, or any armed people who can respond.
A criminal can't have a magazine of any size. A law restricting size adds nothing.
People who want to restrict magazines are on a roll,
using the Tucson assassinations for momentum.
They want any kind of gun bans they can get, regardless
of crime fighting, public safety, logic or reason.
Magazine size is merely the soup du jour.
They are emotionally compromised.
Limiting the amount of ammunition a person has for self defense is dangerous.
Standard magazines in modern pistols like the police use hold 17 rounds or more.
The only way to stop a lethal attack is with countervailing force.
The correct response to a mass murderer is not to restrict the public,
but to empower the public and give us every advantage possible.
People are always the first responders.
Police are second responders.
We face the same criminals.
We both need the best tools we can get.
We know that laws banning murder and armed criminals don't stop criminals.
Why would you want to do more of the same when you know it doesn't work?
(Because it's a hoplophobic response, not a rational one.)
An infringed-capacity magazine violates your civil rights.
Confiscating or banning normal magazines you already own
is a direct violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
Infringing on the size of a magazine doesn't stop crazy people.
Imagining that it somehow will, now that's crazy.
Will magazine-size bans feel good, as if you're really doing something? Yes.
Will they actually do something? No.Reasoning
Will a magazine limit stop a murderer from carrying several guns? Of course not.
Will it prevent swapping out magazines? How do you propose controlling that?
Infringing on magazine size has no effect on the millions of magazines already out there.
Limiting the public doesn't limit criminals. It just limits the public.
Trying to stop crime or crazy people by limiting magazine size can't work.
In fact, we tried that, for ten years under president Clinton's size ban.
It's a proven failure. The NY Times admitted this.
New York Times Describes Bogus Reports.
Resurrecting a proven failure reveals that the magazine-size debate
is about bans, not about public safety.
The public should have at least as much ammunition as police can have.
Because people face the same criminals police do,
we have an honest need for equal gear.
Attacking the right to an uninfringed magazine because of one assassin
is a political game, not a meaningful solution to homicidal rampages.
Using a tragic homicidal assault for leverage against civil rights is reprehensible.
Using tragedy to advance a political agenda
aimed at incrementally disarming the public
is the ugliest underbelly of politics. It's shameful.
Killing Is Fun!
Someone has to say it --
With constant Technicolor promotion of “the thrill of killing”
from Hollywood and TV, we can expect another homicidal rampage.
We must be ready to stop it when it inevitably occurs.
They're not deranged, they're imitating --
With Hollywood and the networks glorifying immoral behavior,
portraying killers as heroes to be emulated, and mourned when put down,
it's false to classify copycat crimes or killing sprees as mental disease.
The proper response to the recognition that people can go berserk
and cause mayhem is to foster a culture of marksmanship.
From army posts to grocery stores, homicidal attacks take place
in make-believe gun free zones. Paper signs do not deter murderers.
A phony gun-free zone made by posting a sign may feel good,
but it has been repeatedly proven to be extremely dangerous and negligent.
A person who posts a no-guns-allowed sign should be liable
if it causes any harm. See the model legislation at gunlaws.com.gunlaws.com - Gun Free Zone Bill and Review
Murderous carnage has nothing to do with magazine size
and everything to do with opportunity. Crowds of unarmed people
offer murderers a field day.
If legislation really could stop criminals there wouldn't be any.
Laws do not stop crime.
Law enforcement stops crime.Politically Corrected Glossary
Always frame the debate as pro rights vs. anti rights,
never as pro gun vs. anti gun, which yields ground to the antis.
This is a civil-rights issue, a question of fundamental human rights.
Always talk about discreet carry, a cultural and civilized norm,
never about concealed carry, which sounds like you have something to hide.
Always refer to personal sidearms, a neutral and non-inflammatory term,
never to handguns, a word that has been vilified beyond usefulness.
Remember that assault is a kind of behavior, not a kind of hardware.
The media loves that word because it spins the debate to their liking,
and makes firearms automatically bad, instead of true focus on bad actors.
Assault is a kind of behavior, not a kind of hardware.
Always ask a person who questions assault-weapon possession
what guns they're talking about exactly. They do not know.
Any weapon you can own is an ordinary household firearm,
the type you might find in any American household.
Don't waste time and audience attention correcting ignorant reporters
who talk about clips or bullets. Let them remain self-evidently ignorant.
See the entire Glossary at gunlaws.com.http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm